Velayati went on to say that the positions of Iran’s military presence in Syria are coordinated with the Assad government, as well as the Russian government. This was in response to a question about Israel demanding a pullout of all Iranians from Syria.

Though Iran has only a small number of forces in Syria, they’ve become an increasingly contentious issue because of Israel’s anger. Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu was in Russia recently to push Vladimir Putin on the idea of forcing them out of Syria. This is also expected to be a topic of discussion in the Putin-Trump summit on Monday.

Velayati’s comments are likely intended to at least partially preempt that possibility by making it clear Iran’s presence in Syria is not contingent on Russian permission, but rather on the Assad government’s invitation.

“With no active hostilities”. So that means Syria, a sovereign country, doesn’t count? And of course we can’t count the countries that we illegally invaded because of the “no active hostilities” clause. Doesn’t even matter if we instigated the “active hostilities”, right?

Yes I misspoke. But thank you for giving the examples of Iraq and Vietnam as countries we illegally invaded. But I get the sense that you’re defending the US because it’s “only” the two and doesn’t include Afghanistan. I guess millions of dead people as the result of illegal invasions is a sign of restraint to you.

Syria is a sovereign country and they don’t want us there. They, along with their allies, can handle what’s left of ISIS. But let your neocon side come out and keep using that bulls**t excuse that we are there to fight ISIS.

The Taliban had an opportunity to expel AQ, they didn’t.
The US had every right to invade, destroy AQ and the Tali’s for refusing to
renounce AQ.

Syria had plenty of time to demonstrate they could take out ISIS but didn’t.
ISIS was attacking us and our allies.
If Syria couldn’t get the job done, don’t be surprised that we would take over, and finish it.

Attack the US, expect to get destroyed, that’s the message.

Thanks for the admission, you misspoke.
No nation is perfect,
and the fact you hate America the most,
while never deciding to leave for a “better” one,
speaks volumes.

We were arming the rebels AGAINST the government. We caused the conditions for ISIS to thrive there. Russian and the Shia militias stepped in to prop up Assad’s government. We’re still calling for regime change.

We’ll create you and when you attack us we will destroy you. That’s what keeps the MIC humming along.

Yes I hate America. What’s not to hate? We’re an imperialistic bully, empire wannabe who props up dictators and supports the apartheid practicing parasite. Until that changes, I will continue the hate. I’d move but there is damned near no place on earth that we haven’t soured. But hey, you continue your jingoistic cheerleading and call yourself a patriot.

Re. the Taliban:
President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir – the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime – told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”.
The Taliban “offer” was BS.

Yes, 0bama armed and created ISIS. Then ISIS attacked us and our allies, 0bama claimed we could do nothing about it, then Trump,
with various locals took them down.

Trump policy does not call for regime change:
Tillerson on Syria: Military Posture Towards Assad Has Not Changed; Trump Not Seeking Regime Changed.
Tillerson on Syria: Military Posture Towards Assad Has Not Changed Trump Not Seeking Regime Change:

“Secretary of State Rex Tillerson joined ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to discuss the evolving U.S. policy towards Syria on Sunday’s edition of ‘This Week.’ Tillerson reiterated that the Trump administration is not seeking regime change in Syria and its “military posture” towards the Assad regime remains unchanged after Thursday’s missile strikes.”

“We’ll create you and when you attack us we will destroy you.”
Well, YEEAH!
It should read “IF–anybody attacks us, we will destroy you”.

Thank you for finally admitting you hate America and,
at the same time lol,
that there probably isn’t a better place to live.
Might I suggest Canada, they enjoy our protection (free of charge) and whine about us all the time.
Sounds like a great place for you.

Just remember, without the US, the planet would be ruled by either
the Russians,
the Chinese or
the Muslims,
think about that and tell me which you would prefer.

You say the Taliban offer was BS and then you described exactly what I said. We refused to prove guilt.

ISIS was created by the vacuum we created by invading Iraq under Bush. That was after al Qaeda became a presence in Iraq because of Bush’s invasion. Whether Obama funded them, al Qaeda or “moderate rebels” doesn’t matter. They weren’t there before we created them and they are the reason we, Russia or the Shia militias were needed to root them out.

Wow, you’re quoting Tillerson as proof that we no longer seek regime change?

Typical neocon. Has no problem with creating enemies to keep the MIC humming.

Your comprehension skills are poor. I didn’t say or imply there is a better place to live. What’s the point in making a lateral move and be underneath the bombs we drop? Might I suggest Israel for you? And take all your Zionist friends with you.

No the Russians, Chinese or Muslims would be mired in multiple quagmires throughout the world. Their infrastructures would be crumbling and their top heavy defense budgets would be destroying their economies. They would be looked at as imperialistic bullies and the rest of the world would hate them and would be conspiring to stop them. Only neocons think what we are doing is a necessity.

The Taliban “offer” was not helpful, it was limited and designed to force conditions on the US all the while protecting AQ and OBL. It was a none starter. The Talis had a chance to get out of the way, they didn’t,
bad choice.

Bush never should have invaded Iraq but
he did not create a vacuum.
0bama did by rapidly leaving Iraq and shipping Benghazi arms to the “moderates” in order to overthrow Assad in his “Arab Spring” campaign. so painfully obvious.

“NeoCon” that old, shop-worn BS label.
The stated goal of the US in Syria is to eradicate ISIS,
NOT change the regime.
Under Trump we have not attacked Syria other than to punish them for using gas against their people, in violation of UN
mandates and crossing 0bama’s stated red line.

We are never going to bomb Canada, but I get it, you just can’t say you live in the best country on the planet because it destroys your
“I hate America” meme. You hate it SOOO much, you just can’t leave 🙂

Re. world dominance your choices are limited to:
the Russkies, Chinese, Muslims or the US.
As for me, thank God the US is a superpower on this malignant planet.

The Taliban offer wasn’t helpful because it wasn’t even considered. Proving guilt is not something we feel the need to do. If we say guilty then it’s guilty. And bad choice for who? The Taliban is still there and can pretty much do anything it wants after 17 years. Bad choice for US.

Removing Saddam didn’t create a vacuum? A sectarian civil war was the result of exactly what? Al Qaeda presence just a coincidence? Or how about the ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods? That happened long before Obama “rapidly” left. And the SOFA saying when we were to leave was signed under Bush. Obama tried to stay but the Iraqis didn’t want to let the Americans to continue to kill with impunity.

There is no need for us to worry about anyone dominating us so your ridiculous assumption that it’s either us, Russia, China or the Muslims(whatever the f**k that means)is based on the neocon wet dream of world dominance.

The Taliban didn’t want to help,
they are Muslims protecting other Muslims,
it’s what they do. Your millennial naivety marches on.

Victors do not take directions from the defeated, (unless you are 0bama)
0bama wanted out, got out and the ensuing vacuum produced ISIS.
Then, 0bama tried to weaponize them against Assad.
Insufferably stupid.

The USA is the only country standing in the way for either Russian, Chinese or Muslim domination. True, there are no “good guys” but there is only one BETTER guy, and you hate us for it, incredible.

More neocon jibberish , this time added with some irrational Muslim mythology. The Taliban was fighting the Northern Alliance at the time. Other Muslims. Is a civil war a way Muslims protect other Muslims? Your idiocy marches on.

Obama didn’t want out. The Iraqis wouldn’t agree to change the status of forces agreement(SOFA) that was agreed to UNDER BUSH. They wanted to be able to prosecute our wonderful trained killers if they broke the local laws. The vacuum was created when Bush invaded. But keep pretending a sectarian civil war didn’t break out after the invasion. Obama never armed ISIS directly. He armed the Syrian “rebels”.

Russia, China and even those Muslims you are so very afraid of don’t have the capability to dominate the world. Not even close. I mean if the worlds only superpower can’t subdue the rag tag Taliban after 17 years how are countries, or those scary Muslims, going to rule the entire planet with a tiny fraction of a military? And I hate the US because it’s chocked full of neocon idiots like yourself.

Muslims do attack other Muslims, no argument, however the Talis were sympathetic to AQ, that’s the rub.

The SOFA was the simply the pretext for 0bama to get out and make good on a campaign promise.
Our withdrawal opened the door for the Sunni uprising that formed ISIS.

0bama knew who the Syria rebels were and where those arms were going, he didn’t care, as long as it worked against Assad.

Welcoming ISIS as a Bulwark against Assad

While arming rebels threatening the massacre of Alawite civilians in Latakia, US planners were at the same time welcoming the potential massacre of Syrian civilians in Damascus. The Syrian capital was on the verge of falling to the Islamic State (ISIS) in the summer of 2015 after ISIS, with the help of Nusra, captured all of the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in the southern Damascus suburbs. The New York Times acknowledged the ISIS threat to Damascus at this time, observing that “By seizing much of the camp” ISIS had “made its greatest inroads yet into Damascus,” while the Washington Post noted that “Their new push puts [ISIS] within five miles of the heart of the capital . . . even as they are on the retreat in Iraq.”

In a private meeting with members of the Syrian opposition, Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that US planners had actually welcomed the ISIS advance on Damascus, in an effort to use it as leverage to force Assad to give up power. Kerry explained that, “the reason Russia came in is because ISIL [ISIS] was getting stronger. Daesh [ISIS] was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus. And that is why Russia came in. They didn’t want a Daesh [ISIS] government and they supported Assad. And we know this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh [ISIS]was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. We thought we could manage that Assad might then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, he got Putin to support him [emphasis mine].”

Yes wars,
find a safe-space, close your eyes and pretend everything will be OK.

I said both Haley and Bolton deal in REALITY, unlike you.
That does not mean I support everything either of them
have ever said or done.
However, Haley has been excellent as UN ambassador, and while I do have issues with Bolton, I realize that Trump uses a good/bad cop approach to
foreign policy.
In his role under Trump Bolton has been acceptable, so far.

You have zero credibility. Zilch. The only reason you think Haley is an “excellent” UN Ambassador is because she is an Israeli firster, just like you. A neocon and an Israeli firster. And don’t try to backtrack on Bolton. He deals in reality according to you. Neocon reality.

Actually, a lot of ISIS activities were funded by allies of the US on the behalf of the US. Much of US “support” to rebels was eventually turned over to ISIS guys in Syria. Then there’s the selling of ISIS oil to Turkey and eventually winding up in Israel. There is only shades of gray, no good guys here.

There is absolutely NO-NONE-ZIPPO justification under either US or International law to provide the US legitimacy to have troops in Syria. Period. So glibly saying “ISIS, OUR enemy, we need to be there” has no basis in law and puts us squarely in violation of both US and International law.

What secrets would he be entitled to maintain that would not be included in the peace agreement from the 1st Gulf War,
UN inspections for WMD capability and
Saddam’s repeated targeting of US planes in a
“no fly zone” protecting Kurds?

Saddam was no boy scout,
why are you so protective for him to keep military secrets?
What was he hiding?

“What secrets would he be entitled to maintain that would not be included in the peace agreement from the 1st Gulf War”

You just said it yourself — any secrets that were not included in the peace agreement.

He had to let international inspectors in to catalog his nuclear, biological and chemical materials and equipment and destroy it. My recollection — it’s been 27 years, after all — is that there was also some stuff about ballistic missiles in the agreement.

Other than that, his secrets remained his, and if he didn’t want US spies seeing them, he was perfectly entitled to demand that said US spies not be allowed to use the UN inspection team as cover to see them.

Saddam was NOT the person to determine what was and was not an appropriate secret. He was defeated and was obligated to allow everything to be inspected —OR—fall under suspicion that he was hiding
WMD and/or their delivery systems.

He calculated, that the US and allies didn’t have the stomach for a 2nd war and became increasingly belligerent.
He calculated, as 0bama’s would say, “wrongly”.

Now I do agree Bush was more than willing to engage in a 2nd war,
and that was nuts,
but Saddam gave Bush the rational to do so.
Nobody is the “good guy”.

However, Bush, with every single wart and blemish, was the better guy.

“Saddam was NOT the person to determine what was and was not an appropriate secret. He was defeated and was obligated to allow everything to be inspected —OR—fall under suspicion that he was hiding
WMD and/or their delivery systems.”

And he did allow everything to be inspected. He just insisted that the inspectors be inspectors, not US spies. And, therefore, UNSCOM chose (probably under US pressure to bring about a confrontation by insisting on keeping the spies) to abandon its mission rather than carry out its mission.

And then UNSCOM decided to return, and Saddam let them, as one of the many ways in which he attempted to avoid the invasion, including, a couple of days before the invasion, offering to resign and leave Iraq. As which point Bush publicly refused and said the invasion was happening no matter what. Which was his actual position the whole time.

But after 1991, he bent over backward to to UN mandates to stay in power. When the UN told him to shit, his answer was generally “what color?” The single exception was that he told the UNSCOM inspection team that they needed to be an UNSCOM inspection team rather than a mobile CIA station.

But after 1991, he bent over backward to to UN mandates to stay in power. When the UN told him to shit, his answer was generally “what color?” The single exception was that he told the UNSCOM inspection team that they needed to be an UNSCOM inspection team rather than a mobile CIA station.

But after 1991, he bent over backward to to UN mandates to stay in power. When the UN told him to shit, his answer was generally “what color?” The single exception was that he told the UNSCOM inspection team that they needed to be an UNSCOM inspection team rather than a mobile CIA station.

The situation is understood best if one considers the primary consideration is Israeli security. Israel has only one real dedicated enemy left in Iran. Hezbollah is a non-state military actor, the Lebanese branch of the Iranian Quds Guard, loyal to the Ayatollah and not to Lebanon. Hezbollah claims to possess 100,000 missiles just a few miles from Israel. It is in no-ones interest to maintain the status quo and allow Israel to be threatened. Israel looks upon Iran/Hezbollah as the last war they will need to fight. It will be a war with plenty of losers.